Organic Community and Free Trade with Chinese Characteristics | 共同体与自由贸易

Identities underly and generate interests; and the main battlefield of identities is education. The foundation of secular communities, including socialism and nationalism, lies in public education.

Only with the natural bonds of “blood and soil” can secular communities — less cohesive than religious ones — offset the erosion of atomisation.

The strength of the US lies in that the cohesive forces of religions, blood and soil ties orient roughly to the same direction; communities grounded on bonds that are separately oriented are mostly vulnerable. The secret to nation construction, therefore, is drawing the right boundaries within which various natural and organic bonds can be mutually reinforced. The larger the community, the more difficult those bonds can be complementary. Likewise, the more divisive those bonds become, the more arbitrary power it requires to glue the inorganic community together.

This explains why democracy for the Chinese or the Ottomans is unattainable: within a highly centralised empire, the identities and interests of different local communities — if left to develop organically — are ultimately incompatible with one another; the seemingly peaceful co-existence of various communities within these empires are achieved through repression, as well as other arbitrary means seeking to prevent local communities from organic formation — rendering the Chinese and Ottomans sand-like Fellahin (in a Spenglerian sense). The demands of various dissenting groups under Chinese rule, if examined meticulously, are no less conflicted with one another than with the ruling tyrant or regime. Fallahin traits and the tendency to appease imperialism are mutual causality; organic communities capable of self-rule inevitably seeks separation.

Abstract and dogmatic leftism, rightism or various other isms, if we disregard their constructive or destructive functions, are largely meaningless. A constructive dogma at one place can be destructive at another. It is therefore not inconceivable for China to replace America as the champion of free trade.

Free trade with Chinese characteristics means that China can trade freely with other markets. The opposite, though, does not apply. This had precedent in world affairs in the peaceful co-existence with Soviet characteristics: the Soviet can subvert the Capitalist bloc; the latter is not allowed to subvert the Socialist camp.

China owes its booming prosperity over the past three decades to the unilateral opening of a world market and security order underwritten by America. Few commentators have observed, however, that TPP and Trumpism are different ways to end the Chinese characteristics.

Trumpism, if implemented, equates to economic Reaganism. Any new trading blocs China builds can not replace the previous world market she has been free-riding for decades. The costs to maintain security in Central and Southeast Asia far outweighs Peking’s financial resources. Even if an alternative model can emerge in the distant future, China cannot in the near term avoid a transition period similar to 1957–1972. Any new institutional arrangement — if Peking can still establish one — has to sacrifice certain interest groups. Hence the question: which groups?

教育權是認同的主要戰場。認同是利益赖以生成的基礎，大於利益。世俗共同體的基礎，包括社會主義和國族主義，都在公立學校。世俗共同體的有機性和凝聚力都弱於宗教共同體，只有在得到血緣和鄉土兩種天然紐帶支持的情況下才能對沖原子化傾向的侵蝕。美國的力量在於宗教、血緣和鄉土的凝聚力大體上指向同一方向。

共同體根基不穩，大多因為各種紐帶的力量指向不同方向。民族發明的技巧，就是要尋找各種紐帶能夠相互支持的最適當邊界。範圍越大，相互支持的難度就越高。共同體內部的分裂傾向越大，國家政權的武斷性就越強。

中國和奧斯曼帝國不可能民主，是因為帝國內部缺乏天然共同體，真實存在的共同體形同水火，只能依靠武斷鎮壓和費拉化散沙化的手段才能勉強維持和平。你若對比各種反賊的訴求，就會發現他們相互之間的矛盾大於他們自己和僭主的矛盾。費拉性和帝國綏靖是互為因果的關係，任何有能力自治的共同體必然分裂。

抽象和教條的左右或主義，如果不考慮它們對具體共同體的建構或解構作用，是沒有什麼意義的。同樣的教條在其發源地是建構因素，在其他地方很可能變成解構因素。所以，北京代替華盛頓，變成自由貿易的主要支持者，是完全可能的。有中国特色的自由貿易意思就是你的市場對我自由貿易，我的市場對你並不。

這種中國特色的自由貿易，在世界舞台上的地位相當於有蘇聯特色的和平共處，後者的意思是我可以顛覆你，但你不能自衛。

中國過去幾十年的繁榮，是美國單方面開放市場和維持秩序的結果。評論家很少提到，TPP和川普主義其實是終結中國特色的兩種不同方式。川普主義如果落實，就是一種經濟上的里根主義。中國能夠建立的任何貿易圈，都替代不了過去的搭便車市場。中亞和東南亞維持秩序的費用，遠遠超出了北京財政資源的承受能力。即使遙遠的未來會出現其他模式，短期也無法避免類似1957–1972的轉型窗口。任何新體制都必須以犧牲一部分人為代價才能建立，如果還能建立的話，就看犧牲誰了。